DOCSLIB.ORG

Obstructions, Extensions and Reductions. Some Applications Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Obstructions, Extensions and Reductions. Some Applications Of Obstructions, Extensions and Reductions. Some applications of Cohomology ∗ Luis J. Boya Departamento de F´ısica Te´orica, Universidad de Zaragoza. E-50009 Zaragoza, Spain [email protected] October 22, 2018 Abstract After introducing some cohomology classes as obstructions to ori- entation and spin structures etc., we explain some applications of co- homology to physical problems, in especial to reduced holonomy in M- and F -theories. 1 Orientation For a topological space X, the important objects are the homology groups, H∗(X, A), with coefficients A generally in Z, the integers. A bundle ξ : E(M, F ) is an extension E with fiber F (acted upon by a group G) over an space M, noted ξ : F → E → M and it is itself a Cech˘ cohomology element, arXiv:math-ph/0310010v1 8 Oct 2003 ξ ∈ Hˆ 1(M,G). The important objects here the characteristic cohomology classes c(ξ) ∈ H∗(M, A). Let M be a manifold of dimension n. Consider a frame e in a patch U ⊂ M, i.e. n independent vector fields at any point in U. Two frames e, e′ in U define a unique element g of the general linear group GL(n, R) by e′ = g · e, as GL acts freely in {e}. An orientation in M is a global class of frames, two frames e (in U) and e′ (in U ′) being in the same class if det g > 0 where e′ = g · e in the overlap of two patches. A manifold is orientable if it is ∗To be published in the Proceedings of: SYMMETRIES AND GRAVITY IN FIELD THEORY. Workshop in honour of Prof. J. A. de Azcarraga. June 9-11, 2003. Salamanca, (Spain) 1 possible to give (globally) an orientation; chosing an orientation the manifold becomes oriented. So the questions are: first, when a manifold is orientable and second, if so, how many orientations are there. These questions are tailor-made for a cohomological answer. This is about the easiest example traslatable in simple cohomological terms by obstruction theory. Let τ be the principal bundle of the tangent bundle to M, so the total space B is the set of all frames over all points: τ : GL(n, R) → B → M (1) Matrices in GL+ with det > 0 have index two in GL, hence are invariant, with Z2 as quotient: we form therefore an associated bundle w1 = w1(τ): GL+ ↓ τ : GL → B → M (2) ↓ ↓ k w1 : Z2 → B/2 → M Our space M is orientable if the structure group reduces to GL+. The set of principal G-bundles over M is noted Hˆ 1(M,G) and it is a cohomology set (in Cech˘ cohomology) [1] . Thus τ ∈ Hˆ 1(M,GL), and we have associated 1 to τ another bundle, name it Det τ ≡ w1(τ) ∈ H (M,Z2), called the first Stiefel-Whitney class of τ (as a real vector bundle). The Cech˘ cohomology set Hˆ 1 becomes a bona fide abelian group for G abelian, whence we supress the ˆ, and the associated bundle, still presently principal, becomes a Z2 cohomology class. Now we have the induced exact cohomology sequence, i.e. 0 1 + 1 1 H (M,Z2) → Hˆ (M,GL ) → Hˆ (M,GL) → H (M,Z2) (3) τ lives in the third group, and by exactness it has antecedent (i.e., M is orientable) if it goes to zero in the final group: the middle bundle above reduces if and only if the quotient splits: so we have the result: M is orientable if and only if the first Stiefel-Whitney class of 1 τ, that is w1 ∈ H (M,Z2), is zero. In other words: M is orientable if τ reduces its group GL to the connected subgroup GL+. According to the fundamental exactness relation, orientabil- ity means section in the lower bundle, and as it is principal, the bundle is trivial, hence its class (w1 ) is the zero of the cohomology group: the lower bundle in (2) splits. 2 Alternatively, M is orientable if it has a volume form, which is the same as a global frame mod det > 0 transformations in overlapping patches. As examples, RP 2 is not orientable, but RP 3 is orientable, where RP n is the real n-dimensional projective space of rays in Rn+1. The reason is the n n n antipodal map (−1, ..., −1) in S leading to RP = S /Z2 is a rotation for n odd, but a reflection for n even; note RP n is not simply connected for any n. To have 1-cohomology in any ring the first cohomology group H1(M,Z) has to be =6 0: simply connected spaces are orientable. Notice the structure group GL reduces always to the orthogonal group O = O(n): any manifold is, in its definition, paracompact, and in any para- compact space there are partitions of unity, hence for a manifold a Riemann metric is always possible: O(n) ↓ GL(n, R) → B → M (4) ↓ Rn(n+1)/2 → E → M As the lower row fibre is contractible, the horizontal middle bundle lifts; O(n) → B0 → M, where B0 is the set of orthogonal frames: any manifold is riemanizable. Note O(n) is the maximal compact subgroup of GL(n), and this is why the quotient is contractible. By contrast, not every manifold admits a Lorentzian metric: it needs to have a field of time-like vectors globally defined. 1 Hence the characteristic class w1 ∈ H (M,Z2) is the obstruction to ori- entability: it measures if an orientation is possible in a manifold. The next question is: If the obstruction is zero, how many orientations are there? Again, the answer is written by (3): the elements in Hˆ 1(M,GL+) falling 0 into τ are the coset labelled by H (M,Z2). In particular, if the manifold 0 is connected, H (M, A) = A, and then the zeroth Betti number is b0 = 1: 0 hence, as then H (M,Z2) = 2, A connected orientable manifold has exactly two orientations. 2 Spin structure The orthogonal group O(n) is neither connected nor simply connected; 0- connectivity questions lead to the first Stiefel-Whitney class, 1-connectivity 3 to the second (sw) class. Suppose the manifold M is orientable already and write the covering group Spin(n) → SO(n): Z2 → Spin(n) → SO(n). (5) For n> 2 this bundle is the universal covering bundle, as π1(SO(n)) = Z2, n> 2. For n = 2 the spin bundle still covers twice, but now π1(SO(2)) = Z. Endow now M with a riemannian structure (there is no restriction on doing this, see above), and write Z2 = Z2 ↓ ↓ Spin(n) → B˜ → M (6) ↓ ↓ k τ : SO(n) → B → M We say that a manifold admits an spin structure (it is spinable) if the (rotation) tangent bundle lifts to a spin bundle. Again, there is a precise homological answer. From the exact sequence, and with τ living in third group 1 1 1 2 H (M,Z2) → Hˆ (M, Spin(n)) → Hˆ (M,SO(n)) → H (M,Z2), (7) we see, as before, that if we call w2 the image of τ, there is an obstruction to spinability, called the second Stiefel-Whitney class, 2 w2 = w2(τ) ∈ H (M,Z2) (8) and a manifold is spinable if and only if w2(M) = 0. For example, spheres and genus-g surfaces are spinable. If the obstruction is zero, how many spin structures there are? Again, a simple look at (7) gives the answer: there 1 are as many as H (M,Z2), which is a finite set, of course. For example, for 1 2g 2g an oriented surface of genus g, H (Σg,Z2) = Z2 , hence # = 2 , as is well known in string theory; recall that the first Betti number b1(Σg)=2g. As examples of spin manifolds, CP 2n+1 is spinable, but CP 2n is not. For 1 2 2 example, CP = S , no sw classes; as for CP , we have that b2 = 1; recall also Euler number (CP n)= n + 1. There is an alternative characterization of spin structures due to Milnor [2], which avoids using Cech˘ cohomology sets. From (6) we have the exact sequence (taking values in Z2): 1 1 1 2 0 → H (M,Z2) → H (B,Z2) → H (SO(n),Z2) → H (M,Z2), (9) 4 and accepting w2 = 0 we see again the number of spin structures to be 1 #H (M,Z2), as B˜ is the total space of the lifted bundle, and lives in the second group. 3 The first Chern class The Det map O(n) → O(n)/SO(n)= Z2 can be performed also in complex bundles, with structure group U instead of O: When does a complex bundle η reduce to the unimodular group? Write SU(n) ↓ η : U(n) → B → M (10) ↓ ↓ k ′ c1 : U(1) → B → M 1 The associated bundle Det η ∈ H (M, U(1)) determines the first Chern class of η by the resolution Z → R → U(1) = S1, as 2 1 c1(η) ∈ H (M,Z)= H (M, U(1)). (11) c1(η) = 0 is the condition for reduction to the SU subgroup, an important restriction in compactifying spaces in M-theory, see later. For the general definition of Stiefel-Whitney (and Pontriagin) classes of real vector bundles, and for the Chern classes of complex vector bundles, the insuperable source is [3] 4 Euler class as Obstruction A more sophisticated example is provided by the Euler class. Look for man- ifolds M with a global 1-frame, i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Persistent Obstruction Theory for a Model Category of Measures with Applications to Data Merging
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY, SERIES B Volume 8, Pages 1–38 (February 2, 2021) https://doi.org/10.1090/btran/56 PERSISTENT OBSTRUCTION THEORY FOR A MODEL CATEGORY OF MEASURES WITH APPLICATIONS TO DATA MERGING ABRAHAM D. SMITH, PAUL BENDICH, AND JOHN HARER Abstract. Collections of measures on compact metric spaces form a model category (“data complexes”), whose morphisms are marginalization integrals. The fibrant objects in this category represent collections of measures in which there is a measure on a product space that marginalizes to any measures on pairs of its factors. The homotopy and homology for this category allow measurement of obstructions to finding measures on larger and larger product spaces. The obstruction theory is compatible with a fibrant filtration built from the Wasserstein distance on measures. Despite the abstract tools, this is motivated by a widespread problem in data science. Data complexes provide a mathematical foundation for semi- automated data-alignment tools that are common in commercial database software. Practically speaking, the theory shows that database JOIN oper- ations are subject to genuine topological obstructions. Those obstructions can be detected by an obstruction cocycle and can be resolved by moving through a filtration. Thus, any collection of databases has a persistence level, which measures the difficulty of JOINing those databases. Because of its general formulation, this persistent obstruction theory also encompasses multi-modal data fusion problems, some forms of Bayesian inference, and probability cou- plings. 1. Introduction We begin this paper with an abstraction of a problem familiar to any large enterprise. Imagine that the branch offices within the enterprise have access to many data sources.
    [Show full text]
  • PIECEWISE LINEAR TOPOLOGY Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Basic
    PIECEWISE LINEAR TOPOLOGY J. L. BRYANT Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Basic Definitions and Terminology. 2 3. Regular Neighborhoods 9 4. General Position 16 5. Embeddings, Engulfing 19 6. Handle Theory 24 7. Isotopies, Unknotting 30 8. Approximations, Controlled Isotopies 31 9. Triangulations of Manifolds 33 References 35 1 2 J. L. BRYANT 1. Introduction The piecewise linear category offers a rich structural setting in which to study many of the problems that arise in geometric topology. The first systematic ac- counts of the subject may be found in [2] and [63]. Whitehead’s important paper [63] contains the foundation of the geometric and algebraic theory of simplicial com- plexes that we use today. More recent sources, such as [30], [50], and [66], together with [17] and [37], provide a fairly complete development of PL theory up through the early 1970’s. This chapter will present an overview of the subject, drawing heavily upon these sources as well as others with the goal of unifying various topics found there as well as in other parts of the literature. We shall try to give enough in the way of proofs to provide the reader with a flavor of some of the techniques of the subject, while deferring the more intricate details to the literature. Our discussion will generally avoid problems associated with embedding and isotopy in codimension 2. The reader is referred to [12] for a survey of results in this very important area. 2. Basic Definitions and Terminology. Simplexes. A simplex of dimension p (a p-simplex) σ is the convex closure of a n set of (p+1) geometrically independent points {v0, .
    [Show full text]
  • Math 527 - Homotopy Theory Obstruction Theory
    Math 527 - Homotopy Theory Obstruction theory Martin Frankland April 5, 2013 In our discussion of obstruction theory via the skeletal filtration, we left several claims as exercises. The goal of these notes is to fill in two of those gaps. 1 Setup Let us recall the setup, adopting a notation similar to that of May x 18.5. Let (X; A) be a relative CW complex with n-skeleton Xn, and let Y be a simple space. Given two maps fn; gn : Xn ! Y which agree on Xn−1, we defined a difference cochain n d(fn; gn) 2 C (X; A; πn(Y )) whose value on each n-cell was defined using the following \double cone construction". Definition 1.1. Let H; H0 : Dn ! Y be two maps that agree on the boundary @Dn ∼= Sn−1. The difference construction of H and H0 is the map 0 n ∼ n n H [ H : S = D [Sn−1 D ! Y: Here, the two terms Dn are viewed as the upper and lower hemispheres of Sn respectively. 1 2 The two claims In this section, we state two claims and reduce their proof to the case of spheres and discs. Proposition 2.1. Given two maps fn; gn : Xn ! Y which agree on Xn−1, we have fn ' gn rel Xn−1 if and only if d(fn; gn) = 0 holds. n n−1 Proof. For each n-cell eα of X n A, consider its attaching map 'α : S ! Xn−1 and charac- n n−1 teristic map Φα :(D ;S ) ! (Xn;Xn−1).
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2101.06841V2 [Math.AT] 1 Apr 2021
    C2-EQUIVARIANT TOPOLOGICAL MODULAR FORMS DEXTER CHUA Abstract. We compute the homotopy groups of the C2 fixed points of equi- variant topological modular forms at the prime 2 using the descent spectral sequence. We then show that as a TMF-module, it is isomorphic to the tensor product of TMF with an explicit finite cell complex. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Equivariant elliptic cohomology 5 3. The E2 page of the DSS 9 4. Differentials in the DSS 13 5. Identification of the last factor 25 6. Further questions 29 Appendix A. Connective C2-equivariant tmf 30 Appendix B. Sage script 35 References 38 1. Introduction Topological K-theory is one of the first examples of generalized cohomology theories. It admits a natural equivariant analogue — for a G-space X, the group 0 KOG(X) is the Grothendieck group of G-equivariant vector bundles over X. In 0 particular, KOG(∗) = Rep(G) is the representation ring of G. As in the case of non-equivariant K-theory, this extends to a G-equivariant cohomology theory KOG, and is represented by a genuine G-spectrum. We shall call this G-spectrum KO, omitting the subscript, as we prefer to think of this as a global equivariant spectrum — one defined for all compact Lie groups. The G-fixed points of this, written KOBG, is a spectrum analogue of the representation ring, BG 0 BG −n with π0KO = KOG(∗) = Rep(G) (more generally, πnKO = KOG (∗)). These fixed point spectra are readily computable as KO-modules. For example, KOBC2 = KO _ KO; KOBC3 = KO _ KU: arXiv:2101.06841v2 [math.AT] 1 Apr 2021 This corresponds to the fact that C2 has two real characters, while C3 has a real character plus a complex conjugate pair.
    [Show full text]
  • ON TOPOLOGICAL and PIECEWISE LINEAR VECTOR FIELDS-T
    ON TOPOLOGICAL AND PIECEWISE LINEAR VECTOR FIELDS-t RONALD J. STERN (Received31 October1973; revised 15 November 1974) INTRODUCTION THE existence of a non-zero vector field on a differentiable manifold M yields geometric and algebraic information about M. For example, (I) A non-zero vector field exists on M if and only if the tangent bundle of M splits off a trivial bundle. (2) The kth Stiefel-Whitney class W,(M) of M is the primary obstruction to obtaining (n -k + I) linearly independent non-zero vector fields on M [37; 0391. In particular, a non-zero vector field exists on a compact manifold M if and only if X(M), the Euler characteristic of M, is zero. (3) Every non-zero vector field on M is integrable. Now suppose that M is a topological (TOP) or piecewise linear (IX) manifold. What is the appropriate definition of a TOP or PL vector field on M? If M were differentiable, then a non-zero vector field is just a non-zero cross-section of the tangent bundle T(M) of M. In I%2 Milnor[29] define! the TOP tangent microbundle T(M) of a TOP manifold M to be the microbundle M - M x M G M, where A(x) = (x, x) and ~(x, y) = x. If M is a PL manifold, the PL tangent microbundle T(M) is defined similarly if one works in the category of PL maps of polyhedra. If M is differentiable, then T(M) is CAT (CAT = TOP or PL) microbundle equivalent to T(M).
    [Show full text]
  • Symmetric Obstruction Theories and Hilbert Schemes of Points On
    Symmetric Obstruction Theories and Hilbert Schemes of Points on Threefolds K. Behrend and B. Fantechi March 12, 2018 Abstract Recall that in an earlier paper by one of the authors Donaldson- Thomas type invariants were expressed as certain weighted Euler char- acteristics of the moduli space. The Euler characteristic is weighted by a certain canonical Z-valued constructible function on the moduli space. This constructible function associates to any point of the moduli space a certain invariant of the singularity of the space at the point. In the present paper, we evaluate this invariant for the case of a sin- gularity which is an isolated point of a C∗-action and which admits a symmetric obstruction theory compatible with the C∗-action. The an- swer is ( 1)d, where d is the dimension of the Zariski tangent space. − We use this result to prove that for any threefold, proper or not, the weighted Euler characteristic of the Hilbert scheme of n points on the threefold is, up to sign, equal to the usual Euler characteristic. For the case of a projective Calabi-Yau threefold, we deduce that the Donaldson- Thomas invariant of the Hilbert scheme of n points is, up to sign, equal to the Euler characteristic. This proves a conjecture of Maulik-Nekrasov- Okounkov-Pandharipande. arXiv:math/0512556v1 [math.AG] 24 Dec 2005 1 Contents Introduction 3 Symmetric obstruction theories . 3 Weighted Euler characteristics and Gm-actions . .. .. 4 Anexample........................... 5 Lagrangian intersections . 5 Hilbertschemes......................... 6 Conventions........................... 6 Acknowledgments. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 1 Symmetric Obstruction Theories 8 1.1 Non-degenerate symmetric bilinear forms .
    [Show full text]
  • Almost Complex Structures and Obstruction Theory
    ALMOST COMPLEX STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTION THEORY MICHAEL ALBANESE Abstract. These are notes for a lecture I gave in John Morgan's Homotopy Theory course at Stony Brook in Fall 2018. Let X be a CW complex and Y a simply connected space. Last time we discussed the obstruction to extending a map f : X(n) ! Y to a map X(n+1) ! Y ; recall that X(k) denotes the k-skeleton of X. n+1 There is an obstruction o(f) 2 C (X; πn(Y )) which vanishes if and only if f can be extended to (n+1) n+1 X . Moreover, o(f) is a cocycle and [o(f)] 2 H (X; πn(Y )) vanishes if and only if fjX(n−1) can be extended to X(n+1); that is, f may need to be redefined on the n-cells. Obstructions to lifting a map p Given a fibration F ! E −! B and a map f : X ! B, when can f be lifted to a map g : X ! E? If X = B and f = idB, then we are asking when p has a section. For convenience, we will only consider the case where F and B are simply connected, from which it follows that E is simply connected. For a more general statement, see Theorem 7.37 of [2]. Suppose g has been defined on X(n). Let en+1 be an n-cell and α : Sn ! X(n) its attaching map, then p ◦ g ◦ α : Sn ! B is equal to f ◦ α and is nullhomotopic (as f extends over the (n + 1)-cell).
    [Show full text]
  • MATH 227A – LECTURE NOTES 1. Obstruction Theory a Fundamental Question in Topology Is How to Compute the Homotopy Classes of M
    MATH 227A { LECTURE NOTES INCOMPLETE AND UPDATING! 1. Obstruction Theory A fundamental question in topology is how to compute the homotopy classes of maps between two spaces. Many problems in geometry and algebra can be reduced to this problem, but it is monsterously hard. More generally, we can ask when we can extend a map defined on a subspace and then how many extensions exist. Definition 1.1. If f : A ! X is continuous, then let M(f) = X q A × [0; 1]=f(a) ∼ (a; 0): This is the mapping cylinder of f. The mapping cylinder has several nice properties which we will spend some time generalizing. (1) The natural inclusion i: X,! M(f) is a deformation retraction: there is a continous map r : M(f) ! X such that r ◦ i = IdX and i ◦ r 'X IdM(f). Consider the following diagram: A A × I f◦πA X M(f) i r Id X: Since A ! A × I is a homotopy equivalence relative to the copy of A, we deduce the same is true for i. (2) The map j : A ! M(f) given by a 7! (a; 1) is a closed embedding and there is an open set U such that A ⊂ U ⊂ M(f) and U deformation retracts back to A: take A × (1=2; 1]. We will often refer to a pair A ⊂ X with these properties as \good". (3) The composite r ◦ j = f. One way to package this is that we have factored any map into a composite of a homotopy equivalence r with a closed inclusion j.
    [Show full text]
  • Differential Topology Forty-Six Years Later
    Differential Topology Forty-six Years Later John Milnor n the 1965 Hedrick Lectures,1 I described its uniqueness up to a PL-isomorphism that is the state of differential topology, a field that topologically isotopic to the identity. In particular, was then young but growing very rapidly. they proved the following. During the intervening years, many problems Theorem 1. If a topological manifold Mn without in differential and geometric topology that boundary satisfies Ihad seemed totally impossible have been solved, 3 n 4 n often using drastically new tools. The following is H (M ; Z/2) = H (M ; Z/2) = 0 with n ≥ 5 , a brief survey, describing some of the highlights then it possesses a PL-manifold structure that is of these many developments. unique up to PL-isomorphism. Major Developments (For manifolds with boundary one needs n > 5.) The corresponding theorem for all manifolds of The first big breakthrough, by Kirby and Sieben- dimension n ≤ 3 had been proved much earlier mann [1969, 1969a, 1977], was an obstruction by Moise [1952]. However, we will see that the theory for the problem of triangulating a given corresponding statement in dimension 4 is false. topological manifold as a PL (= piecewise-linear) An analogous obstruction theory for the prob- manifold. (This was a sharpening of earlier work lem of passing from a PL-structure to a smooth by Casson and Sullivan and by Lashof and Rothen- structure had previously been introduced by berg. See [Ranicki, 1996].) If B and B are the Top PL Munkres [1960, 1964a, 1964b] and Hirsch [1963].
    [Show full text]
  • ALMOST COMPLEX STRUCTURES and OBSTRUCTION THEORY Let
    ALMOST COMPLEX STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTION THEORY MICHAEL ALBANESE Abstract. These are notes for a lecture I gave in John Morgan's Homotopy Theory course at Stony Brook in Fall 2018. Let X be a CW complex and Y a simply connected space. Last time we discussed the obstruction to extending a map f : X(n) ! Y to a map X(n+1) ! Y ; recall that X(k) denotes the k-skeleton n+1 of X. There is an obstruction o(f) 2 C (X; πn(Y )) which vanishes if and only if f can be (n+1) n+1 extended to X . Moreover, o(f) is a cocycle and [o(f)] 2 H (X; πn(Y )) vanishes if and only (n+1) if fjX(n−1) can be extended to X ; that is, f may need to be redefined on the n-cells. Obstructions to lifting a map p Given a fibration F ! E −! B and a map f : X ! B, when can f be lifted to a map g : X ! E? If X = B and f = idB, then we are asking when p has a section. For convenience, we will only consider the case where F and B are simply connected, from which it follows that E is simply connected. For a more general statement, see Theorem 7.37 of [2]. Suppose g has been defined on X(n). Let en+1 be an n-cell and α : Sn ! X(n) its attaching map, then p ◦ g ◦ α : Sn ! B is equal to f ◦ α and is nullhomotopic (as f extends over the (n + 1)-cell).
    [Show full text]
  • Topological Modular Forms with Level Structure
    Topological modular forms with level structure Michael Hill,∗ Tyler Lawsony February 3, 2015 Abstract The cohomology theory known as Tmf, for \topological modular forms," is a universal object mapping out to elliptic cohomology theories, and its coefficient ring is closely connected to the classical ring of modular forms. We extend this to a functorial family of objects corresponding to elliptic curves with level structure and modular forms on them. Along the way, we produce a natural way to restrict to the cusps, providing multiplicative maps from Tmf with level structure to forms of K-theory. In particular, this allows us to construct a connective spectrum tmf0(3) consistent with properties suggested by Mahowald and Rezk. This is accomplished using the machinery of logarithmic structures. We construct a presheaf of locally even-periodic elliptic cohomology theo- ries, equipped with highly structured multiplication, on the log-´etalesite of the moduli of elliptic curves. Evaluating this presheaf on modular curves produces Tmf with level structure. 1 Introduction The subject of topological modular forms traces its origin back to the Witten genus. The Witten genus is a function taking String manifolds and producing elements of the power series ring C[[q]], in a manner preserving multiplication and bordism classes (making it a genus of String manifolds). It can therefore be described in terms of a ring homomorphism from the bordism ring MOh8i∗ to this ring of power series. Moreover, Witten explained that this should factor through a map taking values in a particular subring MF∗: the ring of modular forms. An algebraic perspective on modular forms is that they are universal func- tions on elliptic curves.
    [Show full text]
  • The Topology of Fiber Bundles Lecture Notes Ralph L. Cohen
    The Topology of Fiber Bundles Lecture Notes Ralph L. Cohen Dept. of Mathematics Stanford University Contents Introduction v Chapter 1. Locally Trival Fibrations 1 1. Definitions and examples 1 1.1. Vector Bundles 3 1.2. Lie Groups and Principal Bundles 7 1.3. Clutching Functions and Structure Groups 15 2. Pull Backs and Bundle Algebra 21 2.1. Pull Backs 21 2.2. The tangent bundle of Projective Space 24 2.3. K - theory 25 2.4. Differential Forms 30 2.5. Connections and Curvature 33 2.6. The Levi - Civita Connection 39 Chapter 2. Classification of Bundles 45 1. The homotopy invariance of fiber bundles 45 2. Universal bundles and classifying spaces 50 3. Classifying Gauge Groups 60 4. Existence of universal bundles: the Milnor join construction and the simplicial classifying space 63 4.1. The join construction 63 4.2. Simplicial spaces and classifying spaces 66 5. Some Applications 72 5.1. Line bundles over projective spaces 73 5.2. Structures on bundles and homotopy liftings 74 5.3. Embedded bundles and K -theory 77 5.4. Representations and flat connections 78 Chapter 3. Characteristic Classes 81 1. Preliminaries 81 2. Chern Classes and Stiefel - Whitney Classes 85 iii iv CONTENTS 2.1. The Thom Isomorphism Theorem 88 2.2. The Gysin sequence 94 2.3. Proof of theorem 3.5 95 3. The product formula and the splitting principle 97 4. Applications 102 4.1. Characteristic classes of manifolds 102 4.2. Normal bundles and immersions 105 5. Pontrjagin Classes 108 5.1. Orientations and Complex Conjugates 109 5.2.
    [Show full text]